I like the Fuji system so much that I have also acquired the two fixed focal lenses XF 35 mm and XF 14 mm. Below are my practical impressions and resolution chart measurements of both lenses. Again, I made a comparison with Canon cameras. In addition to the EOS 5D Mark III also the EOS 600D has been used, which has a similar sensor (18 Megapixel APS-C) as the Fuji X-E1 (16 Megapixel APS-C).

For the first time, a much larger test chart was used to achieve a better image scale especially for testing the wide-angle lenses. With APS-C sensor, the scale now about 1:30 and with the full-frame sensor it is about 1:20.I found that especially the full-frame lenses benefit from the smaller magnification and show partially higher resolutions and less chromatic aberrations as in my earlier tests. Therefore, new test shots of all lenses were made under the same conditions.As always the cameras were carefully aligned on a tripod and triggered by self-timer to avoid vibration (the EOS 5D Mark III with an additional mirror prerelease).

All images were shot in RAW format and developed with Capture One 7.0.2. Noise reduction, sharpening and lens corrections were all turned off. Between 80 and 160 regions of interest (ROIs) were evaluated and averaged in each individual image. This analysis has been performed by help of the QuickMTF software. The software versions of cameras and lenses were up to date as of February 2013, i.e. 1.04 (Body of X-E1), 1.0 (XF 14 mm lens) and 2.02 (XF 35 mm lens).

[Update for clarification: My approach is to compare the complete camera system (lens, filters, sensor, signal electronics, …) from a practical, photographer's point of view. The simple question is: When shooting the same scene (same angle of view, same depth of field) with different cameras and lenses, how do the images compare in terms of resolution? The (only) metric for such a comparison is LPH (lines per picture height).

Naturally, there are more factors to consider in such a comparison, like distortion, vignetting, color reproduction, lens errors etc. But many of these issues can easily be removed entirely or at least to a large degree in RAW software. Therefore, I am not particularly interested unless one camera systems shows obvious failures. But that was not the case here.]

Fuji's X-E1 camera with the XF 35 mm f/1.4 lens shows good to very good resolution over the entire aperture range. It is useful even when fully opened. Stopping down to f/2.8 brings the edges into full sharpness. Compared to the XF 18-55 mm zoom, however, the XF 35 mm only offers a slightly increased resolution.

The manual focusing of the XF 35 mm is quite tedious because the focus ring reacts differently depending on the rotational speed. If one turns the ring very slowly, it takes many turns from infinity to close-up. Turning the ring quickly means it will cover the same focal range in half a turn. This behavior is not intuitive and so manual focusing with this lens takes a lot of time and patience. The autofocus of the XF 35 mm is a bit noisy and much slower compared to the XF 18-55 mm zoom lens, but with the latest firmware it is finally accurate.

The tactile quality of the XF 35 mm is very good. Some parts are metal, others from high-quality plastics. Especially the metal lens hood is great and a real eye-catcher.

A comparison of the Fuji X-E1 with the XF 35 mm and the XF 18-55 mm against the two Canon cameras is rather sobering.

The resolution of the full-frame EOS 5D Mark III can not be matched by the Fuji with neither lens, which was to be expected. Again it should be noted, that not only the focal length but also the aperture (depth of field) has to be converted with a factor of 1.5 from APS-C to full frame format. An aperture of f/1.4 at the Fuji corresponds to f/2.0 at the EOS 5D Mark III, etc.

I was surprised by the good performance of the EOS 600D with its rather simple kit zoom lens (Canon EF-S 18-55 IS II). In the aperture range from f/5.6 onward, this combination gives at least as good resolution as the Fuji X-E1 with XF 35 mm fixed focal length optics. You can even see the minimal pixel count advantage of the Canon (18 MPixel versus 16 MPixel) in the resolution charts.

To sum it up, one is better off with the new XF 18-55 mm than with the XF 35/1.4, provided you can do without the larger apertures. In particular since the zoom lens also offers an effective image stabilizer.A similar result was also obtained by Photozone.de, where the two lenses (XF 35 and XF 18-55) were tested in much greater detail than here.

Canon's cheap kit lens (18-55) declines in chromatic aberrations as expected, especially in the border areas. The two full-frame lenses (24-105 and 50 mm) also have as their quirks. Ultimately, however, critical values ​​of around one pixel and more are rarely exceeded.

It is striking to see the Fuji prime lens XF 35 mm deliver somewhat worse results ​​than the XF zoom 18-55. One can assume that Fuji performs electronic corrections in camera, which also have an effect on RAW data.On the other hand, software corrections of chromatic aberration are often noticeable by a reduced corner resolution, and this can not be found here in the comparison of the two lenses.

Fuji calls up a high price for the XF 14mm (€ 900 street), especially for an APS-C prime lens. But my high expectations were actually met.

The mechanics of the lens are nothing but excellent. The mix of high-quality plastic and metal makes a very good impression. The two setting rings for aperture and focus run smoothly and without play. The aperture ring operates even a bit more accurate than the mechanically and visually also very good XF 35 mm. The autofocus has little to do at this focal length (21mm equivalent to full frame) and it works quickly and flawlessly.

A most unique feature of this auto-focus lens is the ability to switch to a mechanically coupled manual focus. After pulling the focus ring towards the camera body the focus can be set directly, i.e. without a remote controlled servo motor. To achieve the coupling the focus motor firstly drives the optics to the mechanically preset focal length. After that, the coupling is automatically engaged. No operation of the small M-C-S rotary switch is required.

A full manual focus swing from infinity to close-up is performed in about a quarter of a turn, which makes manual focusing nothing but pure pleasure. In addition, a depth of field scale for hyperfocal focusing is printed on the lens. It is based on a more practical calculation of unsharpness compared to the electronic scale in the viewfinder.Ultimately, the XF 14 mm is the first and only XF series lens, which constitutes an excellent manual focus that is a real alternative to autofocus. I very much hope that Fuji will bring more optics with this design to the market in the future.

Let's now look at the optical qualities of the XF 14 mm. As a comparison the EOS 5D Mark III was used once more. Since I didn't have an equivalent prime lens I have used Canon's EF 16-35 mm f/2.8 L II zoom optics. Naturally, any zoom lens has a difficult stand against a prime. Even more so in this case, since Canon fans know the 16-35 mm offers a rather mediocre performance especially in the border areas of the frame.

The optical qualities of Fuji XF 14 on the X-E1 body need not many words: The lens is simply outstanding. Even the open aperture f/2.8 is very usable. Stopped down to f/4 the image is sharp over the whole frame right to the edges. Smaller apertures do not improve sharpness further. Diffraction blur occurs noticeably at f/16, but it only becomes really visible at f/22.

Here again, the full-frame camera shows what is possible with a larger sensor and provides higher resolution at all comparable apertures. Whether this is really needed is an entirely different question.

One can ask the question why the X-E1 with the various lenses delivers a rock-solid performance in my tests, but is not the celebrated stellar performer as in some other reviews. The reason might be that I was analyzing RAW files and not the JPEGs out of the camera.Fuji's software department has obviously done a great job and the X-E1 produces excellent JPEGs. But a comparison of raw sensor data is more revealing, since resolution measurements can be manipulated by JPEG sharpening almost arbitrarily. Only RAW files show the real performance of the optical system under similar conditions.

It turns out the X-E1 provides a very good image quality, but ultimately, it is on a par with other top APS-C cameras of similar resolution. Even with the two excellent prime lenses the X-E1 does not reach the resolving power of a full frame camera.

A similar conclusion was found by the well-respected German foto magazine "ColorFoto". At first, the X-E1 was praised to heaven based on its JPEG performance (ColorFoto, issue 1/2013, page 30 ff.), but when analyzing raw performance later, the assessment was put into perspective (ColorFoto, issue 3/2013, page 20 ff.).

Regarding the performance of RAW software in connection with the special X-Trans sensor, it must be noted that Fuji has provided the algorithm to all interested manufacturers (at least Fuji representatives have said this several times). I have studied all four currently available RAW converters (Lightroom, Capture One, Raw Photo Processor and RAW File Converter EX SILKYPIX) and found no dramatic resolution differences. Therefore, the RAW software should not be regarded as the cause of the very good, but not stellar performance of Fuji's camera system.

I find resolution measurements revealing and exciting. But it is also obvious that the quality of all cameras and lenses tested here is well above the level needed for normal applications. The resolution is more than adequate for large prints, posters and professional use in glossy magazines. Only few specialists will require higher resolutions and even then only in rare cases.

Ultimately, it is much more a question of whether one has a comfortable feeling when using a camera and whether one likes taking pictures with it. Is it fun to pick up and handle? Can you still operate all important functions intuitively even after a longer pause?And this is where Fuji's X-system really shines, especially with the great XF 14 mm lens and its mechanical focus ring.

Adobe has updated its RAW software and released an improved version specifically for the X-Trans sensor in February of 2013. For comparison I have repeated some of the resolution calculations that were previously done with Capture One with the same RAW-files in LR 4.4.There is a remarkable similarity between the results of these rather different programs for the Canon camera and lenses. The X-E1 shows better resolution now with LR 4.4 and gets closer to the EOS 5D Mark III.

Sample ImagesThe following pictures are available for download in their original size with low compression. All images were shot in RAW format and developed in JPG with Capture One 7.0.2. Some of the technical image information is displayed as a tool tip (just leave the mouse pointer over an icon for a while). The rest is entirely included in the EXIF ​​data.